Yet another entry in the running series of litigants getting ensnared by contrary evidence on social media. The underlying case involved a “break room incident.” The plaintiff alleged that another employee masturbated in front of her in the breakroom; the other employee claimed “all that happened in the break room was that he gave plaintiff a friendly kiss” (note to employees: “friendly kisses” in the breakroom are almost always potential litigation bait). After the defendants got summary judgment, they turned around and sought sanctions for the plaintiff’s evidence in the case. Among other things that emerged:

Plaintiff lied at her deposition, and to her own expert psychiatrist, in describing the emotional effects of the break room incident and omitting her own sexual history. In fact, she enjoyed an extraordinarily active travel and social life during the time she described herself as being “bedridden” and in a “vegetative state” as a result of the incident, including engaging in sexual banter with friends on Facebook.

Note to plaintiffs: Facebook will destroy any false claims of being bedridden and vegetative, except perhaps for a claim that using Facebook generally makes its users a bit vegetative.

The plaintiff’s lawyer in this case also gets a bad benchslap:

plaintiff’s lawyer should be roundly embarrassed. At the very least, he did an extraordinarily poor job of client intake in not learning highly material information about his client, and setting up an expert psychiatric interview where the psychiatrist, charged with diagnosing a claim of PTSD solely as a result of an alleged five minute instance of exhibitionism, had no idea that plaintiff was a former prostitute.